Bambang wrote:I think you need to catch the meaning of weapons. And you should have known that guns and bombs are parts of weapons. How come you said that a weapon is not useful against a bomb. In fact, bombs are parts of weapons.

.

Well, let´s start over to see if you get my point. In my first post, I said weapons are anything that can be used to hurt you, even your own body. Of course bombs are a weapons, but when I said "weapon" in my post, I mean anything YOU manage to get in the streets, for example a knife, a stick, a gun or whatever, because I wanted to braod the discussion, considering that it was bundled up only for guns. When I said that weapons are useless to fight back against bombs is because you won`t get any weapon to repel that attack or at least is not easy. Imagine that you are at home and you see a fighter plane dropping a bomb towards your position...Are you going to shoot your gun, or hurl a knife to stop it?

Bambang wrote:Then, you should have known that to defend our country we don't have to join the army. Defensing our countries is everybody's responsibility.The point is we are responsible for what we can do and what role we can play. You can be an informan, a nurse, a cook for the fighters, or any professions you are able to do.

.

Theorically speaking, that`s true, I mean everybody have the resposability to defend their country. But the reality is that tons of people prefer protect their families and we have to respect that, well, at least I do. If your argument were true, all the lebanese would have fought against Israelis during the last war. But instead of that, we could see (or at least I do)many of them looking for shelter in Syria and the north of the country.

Ok, you can contribute in many ways for a cause, that´s true, but I think that you have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: arny, navy, resistance, etc) because in that way, your contribution will be more effective instead of doing it by your own. For example, if you were an informant and you manage to get a very valuable information that could define the course of any battle... then if you don´t know who the leader is of that battle or more important what are the mechanism to give it that information, let me tell you that information would be completely useless. Or a nurse who want to help but she/he doesn´t know where she/he have to go. In any case you have to be clear about your role during the war and someone have to tell you what it is (an organization, a leader, etc)

Bambang wrote:Come on buddy, get the point! I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even inresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

.

Firstly, What do you mean with "not bad"? Of course it´s not bad, if fact that is the problem because many doesn´t know how to do it at the same time, I mean how can you fight for your country avoiding that your familt get hurt?. I guess you´re trying to say that defending your country and proctecting your family are compatible terms, Am I rigth? Well, if that is the case, let me tell you that I disagree with you. How come somebody will fight a war thinking about the safety of its family? Or Do you think soldiers carry their families with them and share priceless moments inside a trench? Do you think Russian soldiers carried their families with them when they had to fight back against Nazi`s attack during the WWII?. My friend, I´m sure that they put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. Would you mind telling me how I can protect my family and fight for my country at the same time?

One question... Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views.

Well my friend, it means that there's no difference between us on the definition of weapons. Guns and bombs are parts of weapons. Deal.

My friend, it's okay to broaden our discussion but you shouldn't have forgotten the main topic. As long as your topic is still related to the main topic, to me, that's even better.

My dear friend, again, I want to remind you that you can do whatever the role you can do in a war as long as you can do it. I didn't say that everybody must fight and hold a gun to fight. You can play any role suitable with you. As you also say that we can contribute in many ways for a cause.

Next, my friend, I agree with you that to make it more effective, we have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: army, navy, resistance, etc).

Buddy, I also agree with you that we have to be clear about our role during the war. That's why I say that we have to do anything to defend our country based on our own roles.

Next, let's discuss your question. But before that, I want to quote my opinion again. Here it is :

Bambang wrote:Come on buddy, get the point! I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even irresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

.

My friend, I just wanted to give you a soft language by saying "not bad". What I wanted to say is "not bad" means very good".

My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.

Next, Your question:

"Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views".

My friend, I really respect any points of view. I don't like pushing my opinion to be accepted. I also can not force you to defense your country by involving yourself in a war. I just wanna advice you to be a real man, never run way from any responsibilities including the responsibility to defense and protect your country.

By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence. [/quote]

bambang wrote:My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.

Depends. Speaking strickly about war, I need to believe on the cause what I´m fighting for. As you know, some "leaders" make up any excuse to fight a war, especially when thay can`t solve our basic needs such as unemployment, crime, corruption, etc. Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are afectting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.

bambang wrote:And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.

Well, I don´t know. As I said, If I strongly believe on the cause that I´m fighting for, of course I wouldn´t, but first I need to assure my family´s safety. If I wasn´t not able to do it, then I would run away. In other words, If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family, even though I can have remorses in the future. For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.

bambang wrote:By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence.

No, I hadn´t forgotten your question, the thing was that I wanted to do some reseach to answer appropriately. Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my countryfellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to? Or do you think that in that time, every and each person believe in that cause?

jrkp wrote:Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, the Malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are affecting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.

My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

One thing that I want to advice you buddy:Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

My dear friend, to response your case on the American soldiers in Iraq, here is my point of view :

First, I agree with you that the American soldiers in Iraq are being manipulated by their leaders. They are not defensing their country. In fact, they are ruining the image of the USA before the world.

Second, Since they are not defensing their country or protecting their family, then they don't need to get involved in that occupation and invasion. On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.

jrkp wrote:If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family.

My friend, both are needed to get protection. If I have to choose between the two, my choice is both. I can not separate them. To me, my family is as important as my country. Both must be protected.

jrkp wrote:Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my country fellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they be considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to?

My honey friend, If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me. Unbargainable.

bambang wrote:My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must to be focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turn into a burden for the cause. That´s why I said:

For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.

What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeoparidize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that. You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.

bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalisim flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborator with U.N inspector, U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to lauch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.

On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.

That´s my point!!!! you see, you say that because you don´t believe in the motive to fight that war. At the beginning of the war, if you were american, you would be consider as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think different.

bambang wrote:My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

jrkp wrote:My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turning into a burden for the cause.

What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeopardize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that.

My friend, I have put forward my point of view on this. Here I restate it !

If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me.

My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.

jrkp wrote:You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.

Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.

bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

jrkp wrote:Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalism flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked the U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting the U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborative with the U.N inspector, the U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to launch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.

My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts. Mr Bush say he did it for the sake of the Iraqi people. Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam. He has killed uncountable innocent people in Iraq. And he has also sucked his soldiers’ blood in Iraq. Thousands of American soldiers have died for nothing but just for Bush’ personal agendas. What a pity the victims are !!! And what a shame on Bush !!!

bambang wrote:On this case, I totally agree with you that the American soldiers can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum in other countries for protection.

jrkp wrote:That´s my point!!!! At the beginning of the war, if you were American, you would be considered as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think differently.

My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

Bambang wrote:My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.

My friend, firstly, I don´t have the intention to force your opinion, that´s not the point because, as you said, that´s the core of the discussion, when you can hear different points of views and enrichment your perception of things. Second, I have said, and I´ve been very consistent with this, that I would fight If two condition are fulfilled:

1) If I strongly believe in the cause I´m fighting for, and2) If I can assure my family future.

I´ll give you a case where I would fight: If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification and also, I manage to assure my family´s future without me, for example, sending them to live abroad. In this case I would fight with all my heart to defend my ideals without any distraction, so in that way, I can give my best for the cause I´m fighting for.

Bambang wrote:Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.

As you said my friend, it´s a synergy. Also, It I guess it would be completely useless if you have an entire nation fighting but they don´t have enough resources to fight back, in the case that your enemy have more resources than you. So, with this idea in mind, I´ll tell you that I could be more effective doing diplomatic work instead to fight a war where I can´t be absolulety focus on my duty. But, as you said, It´s a matter of choice and more important a matter of conviction.

bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts.

I wanna link this comment you have made with mine in the first paragraph. I´ll quote myself:

If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification

My opinion is that we need to see an invasion in the context it takes place. I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an extrenal one which is lauching missiles from its territory. To me, it completely justificable to invade that country which is attacking mine. Or Are you going to do nothing to stop it just because you have to respect its sovereignty? Or are you gonna advice it to stop the attack? That´s why I said that some invasion are neccesary, but it must have a pretty good justification.

bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam

I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail. In the case of Saddam, who wasn´t an angel, well, we know how he ended up and regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.

Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

You said that because you´re thinking as a Philippine and not as American (I suppose you´re Indonesian because your location is Jakarta). Remember that Mr Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve its own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Declaration of Human Right Acts.

jrkp wrote:I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an external one which is launching missiles from its territory. To me, it's completely justifiable to invade that country which is attacking mine.

My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER. In the case of yours, certainly, if your country is being attacked by another, it means that the country which is attacking yours is the INVADER.

And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.

The next question is how to stop the invasion. This is a very important question.

I’d like to broaden our discussion on this. Sorry if this is too long.

I would bring the real case that's happening in Iraq.

We both agree that in this case the USA is the invader. Even the USA calls this operation as INVASION. And most of people in this planet agree that what the USA is doing in Iraq now is totally wrong. And the majority of the USA people is not even in line with the USA's policy. It's been proven that the majority of American people didn't support the party where Mr. Bush comes from. The vote for the party dropped drastically. And the opposing party won the parliamentary election by getting more than 50% of the total vote.

My point is we can not re-invade the USA just because it has done a wrong doing by invading Iraq. The solution is:

First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam

jrkp wrote:I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail.

Regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.

Well my friend, on this case, I totally agree with you. BRAVO.

The next case :

Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

jrkp wrote:Remember that Mr. Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

My friend, I am so sorry to say that Mr. Bush has managed to manipulate his people for the sake of his personal agendas. And I really take pity on the American soldiers. I just wanna suggest the American people to stop Mr. Bush from killing his won soldiers by sending them to Iraq. And regarding with the soldiers: My soldier friends, please think about my suggestion to seek asylum in other countries.

Bambang wrote:My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER.......

Why? I don´t understand why you said that. An invader is someone who enter into a place which doesn´t belong to him. As simple as that!!! According to cambridge Dictionary, This is the definition of Invade:

Definitioninvade Show phoneticsverb 1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:Concentrations of troops near the border look set to invade within the next few days.

2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.

3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way:Maria looks set to invade the music scene with her style and image.

4 [T] to spoil a situation or quality that another person values with very noticeable and selfish behaviour:Famous people often find their privacy is invaded by the press.

So, seeing this definitions, How come you say that a country which is attacking other is an INVADER? When I said Invader, I meant that other country´s troops putting theirs foots in yours, that all.... I rather refer to them as "attackers"

Bambang wrote:And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.

Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some point, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?

Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

Including? To me this channel have to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.

Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification.... And that´s what I´ve been saying, in some special situation, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....

Yes, you are right my friend on the definition of “to invade”. I have also looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary. The definition is not much different. But my point is: there’s no debate on whether or not the American operation is called “an invasion”. It’s absolutely an invasion. They are invaders. They themselves said that too. We all know that the stupid ~ invasion is absolutely wrong. What I actually wanna say is that we don’t have to invade back the USA. We can only do that when all ways go to the dead end.

jrkp wrote:Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some points, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?

My friend, you got it wrong. I said that we could attack the USA If all approaches to stop the war fail or all ways go to the dead end. This is the last step buddy.

Here I re-quote my solution to that problem:

Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

jrkp wrote:Including? To me this channel has to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.

Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???

jrkp wrote:So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification....

C’mon my friend !!! Wake up !!!I didn’t say I agree with you that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable. Not at all my friend. I didn’t accept any invasions. To me, an invasion is another form of colonialism. And it goes against the declaration of human right acts.

My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.

jrkp wrote:In some special situations, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....

Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet?

don't know what you are talking here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun

but anyhow I was told many times how private property right is violated here. many small summer cabins are located in remote places near forests. Drug addicts bent to enter it even when the owners are at home, rob them and you never know what comes next... this case I would be much glad to have a gun under my pillow to save my life. I guess when you're living in the countryside gun is a necessary thing!

dshowgina wrote:i don't think anyone should be entitled to have a private gun except the police officers. Though one claims to own a gun in the name of self-protection, no one can assure someone will not use it to threaten the others' life someday. but, everyone without a gun, it reduces the possibility that one can hurt or harm the others with a gun. i can't say it's 100% because sometimes the police officer will abuse their guns.

Oh, please, should I name ways to get guns illegally? not that I tried to but this is obvious! not only policemen do have ones, I bet

Bambang wrote:Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???

My friend, diplomatic channels are always useful, in spite of the parts in conflict don´t have the will to negotiate, because in some point, they will reach an agreement depending on the evolution of the war. But to do that they must keep talking. What I´m was trying to explain when I said that the parts should have the will to talk is because in that way, they can understand each other and stop the war quicker.

Bambang wrote:....... My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.

Well, no question about that point!!! of course you have to attack the invader to defend your country, in fact, we´ve descussed that point in previous posts. The problem would be that we can attack the invader in many, many forms. By the way, Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....

Bambang wrote:Could you please tell me which invasions you meant? Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet?

Of course, I´ll tell you the ones I can recall, but I betcha that there are more examples hanging there:

During the World War II, We can see a few good examples. When the Nazis invaded Russia, red army fought bravely and at the end, they managed to expel them. But they didn´t stay in Russia, no, they chased nazis until they reach Berlin an bring down Hitler´s administration. If you look up information, a very few books (to don´t say none) refer to that action as an invasion, even though they entered a country by force and took possesion of Berlin (See invasion definition below).

Other example would be regarding Britain performance. They stayed stand when Nazis sent fightplanes to attack them but, when Americans and Russians got involved into the war, they planned to invade Germany with them to displace Hitler from power. If you analyzed this fact carefully, they invaded Germany to stop the agression that they were suffering (Protect their country invading other).

Let´s take a look to French case. They were defeated by Germany and its army were dismantled. Afterwards, they created a resistance to fight back, but they didn´t have any success until the allies re-invaded France to kick Germans out. They weren´t called invaders (even though they entered to a country by force), they were called "liberation force" instead.

I´ll give you more recent examples. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and later on the whole world gather an multinational force to expel Iraqui army from that country, As you know, They did it but again, they didn´t stop there, no, they entered into Iraqui´s soil and established the famous paralel 30 (You must remember that). The "multinational" force invaded Iraq, but, again a few countries complained about it, or at least didn´t make such a big deal that they are making nowadays about Iraq. I betcha If they had gone to take over Baghdad in that time, the world wouldn´t have said anything about it.

In 1994, NATO invaded Kosovo to expel Serbian´s Army. In fact, they didn´t called it as an invasion, they called it as an "humanitarian war" . And what about the invasion of Afghanistan? Countries which have opposed to Iraq invasion were supportive to this one, or at least they didn´t offer a strong opposition as they have been giving it regarding Iraq.(e.g. France. Germany, China, Russia, etc)...

I can give you more example: Haiti, Somalia, etc, but with those ones that I´ve written above are enough. To me, the inavasion in those cases are completely justificable....

jrkp wrote:Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....

My friend, the word "protective" originates from "to protect". Whatever you do to protect your country or families, thus the "protective actions". That simple huh !!!. My friend, don't make it complex by giving a lot of definitions from your dictionaries, ha ha ha .... !

Well, my friend, you have just extremely impressed me on your history lesson. Frankly speaking, I had to recall that lesson. You are even much better than my history teacher then. You rock !!!!

But my friend....

I'd like to straighten the term of "invasion". Let's narrow the scoop of invasion just in WAR.

To me, the first country which attacks others is called "the invader". And the countries which attack back the invader are doing "protective actions". They are not called as invaders.

So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.

I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.

So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.

Tora wrote:don't know what you are talking about here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun

jrkp wrote:You're right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... .

My dear Tora, you're absolutely right. We have a proverb on that. Here it is : "A tongue is much sharper and dangerous than a gun".

My friend Tora, this is a discussion forum. The more words you use to support your ideas the better. The most important thing is that your words should be relevant to the topic as well as argumentative.

My friend Tora, I really appreciate your involvement in "our war". This is a smart bright war. It's not personal. It's pure a healthy war between two "countries".

So, if you wanna get involved in this war, please read first all previous posts we both have posted so that you can understand on what we are talking about.

If you do that, then this "war" would be a triangle one. It would be more interesting because we’ll get some alternative ideas.

I don't hope you take side to one of us. I appreciate you more when you have your own positions.

Bambang wrote:]So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.

I couldn´t said it better!!!! You´re absoultely right, it´s a Play of Words!!!! You can call it as whatever you want, but at the end of the day, and according to my beloved dictionaries, an invasion is an invasion. Period. And to make my point clear, I gave you a few examples in my history class....

Bambang wrote:]I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.

You see, To you and, of course, to me, that´s not a good reason to invade other country, that´s why we´ve opposed to that action. But, the thing is that every invasion have a justification, some of them have enough arguments to justify it and others don´t.

Let me give you another history class. The reason why Bush´s administation launched a military action against Iraq was because the creation of the concept "preventive" war, it wasn´t for humanitarian reasons....

Bambang wrote:So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.

So, my friend, I have to say it again, you´re actually agree with me that there are justifiable invasion,just that you call it as a protective action and I call it in that way, but at the end, it´s the same concept, don´t you think?.